Bug 77709 – Rename [Deletable] IDL to [NotConfigurable] IDL

• Status: RESOLVED
• Resolution: WONTFIX
• Component: WebCore JavaScript

[Kentaro Hara]

[Deletable] is a negation of [[Configurable]] in the ECMAScript spec (8.6.1 of http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-262.pdf). We can rename [Deletable] to [NotConfigurable].

[Kentaro Hara]

Created attachment 125249 [details]
Patch

[Kentaro Hara]

BTW, [NotConfigurable] is implemented in JSC only. Should we also implement it in V8?

Currently, [NotConfigurable] is used by HTMLDocument.all only. I could not find the HTMLDocument.all spec (HTMLDocument does not have |all| in the HTML5 spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/dom.html#htmldocument)), and I am not sure if it is acceptable to make HTMLDocument.all [[NotConfigurable]] in V8.

[Kentaro Hara]

(In reply to comment #2)
> BTW, [NotConfigurable] is implemented in JSC only. Should we also implement it in V8?
> 
> Currently, [NotConfigurable] is used by HTMLDocument.all only. I could not find the HTMLDocument.all spec (HTMLDocument does not have |all| in the HTML5 spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/dom.html#htmldocument)), and I am not sure if it is acceptable to make HTMLDocument.all [[NotConfigurable]] in V8.

Sorry, the HTML spec is here: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/obsolete.html#dom-document-all

As far as I see the HTML spec and the Web IDL spec, it seems that HTMLDocument.all should not be configurable. Maybe we do not need to implement it in V8.

[Adam Barth]

> Maybe we do not need to implement it in V8.

That seems likely.  It's also possible V8 does this with custom code given that it's only used in one place.

[Adam Barth]

Comment on attachment 125249 [details]
Patch

I'm not sure this is an improvement.  Deletable is very easy for me to understand what it means.  If we could align exactly with WebIDL, that might swing the balance, but given that we're not going to match WebIDL exactly, I'd opt for the clearer "Deletable" over the somewhat-confusing "NotConfigurable".

Thoughts?

[Kentaro Hara]

(In reply to comment #5)
> (From update of attachment 125249 [details])
> I'm not sure this is an improvement.  Deletable is very easy for me to understand what it means.  If we could align exactly with WebIDL, that might swing the balance, but given that we're not going to match WebIDL exactly, I'd opt for the clearer "Deletable" over the somewhat-confusing "NotConfigurable".
> 
> Thoughts?

IMO, [NotEnumerable] will be acceptable. [NotConfigurable] might be acceptable. [NotWritable] is worse than [ReadOnly] (though I posted the patch). OK, then let us mark the renaming patches for [NotConfigurable] and [ReadOnly] as "WONTFIX".

[Kentaro Hara]

(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> IMO, ... [NotWritable] is worse than [ReadOnly] (though I posted the patch). OK, then let us mark the renaming patches for ... [ReadOnly] as "WONTFIX".

Please ignore the above comment. I've not yet posted the patch:-)

Thanks indeed for reviewing patches.